On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 1:04 AM Jonathan Wakely <
cxx@kayari.org> wrote:
The most notable complaint is loss of information about the preceding variable's type.... which can be handled with variable name notation like 'pBlah' vs 'oBlah'...
No, Hungarian notation is not an acceptable alternative.
The second complaint is the conflict with smart pointers...
I wasn't quick enough at the time to say 'well if you're pushing use of smart pointers, and
What does "pushing use of smart pointers" mean? Sounds like opinionated nonsense.
I feel like there's sections of the minutes missing; it was said something like 'we are suggesting use of smart points anyway' with pushing being my paraphrase for the same idea... it might have even been pushing; but there's only one instance of 'smart' in the minutes, and I'm certain that word was said more than once.
this doesn't affect smart pointers, since '.' already has a well defined behavior... it's a nothing-burger for you anyway; and would just be part of compatibility with C' (extending '.' to look at the left type).
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If -> is not used for pointers, but is still used for smart pointers and std::optional etc then you haven't really simplified anything. Just created inconsistency where there was consistency before.
I understand this viewpoint; but in having accepted '.' (in a post '.' derefercing pointer view) it is a consistent behavior to access a member of an object rather than 2 methods. Just because idomatic C++ doesn't get the same benefit of 'consistency' now that you mention these things, seems unfair to keep others from having it... but then who besides me maintains C that is also C++ compilable? Do we/should we really even care about compatibility?